If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gawker)   Occupy Wall Street protester sentenced to seven years for elbowing a police officer after he grabbed her boob, therefore left wing activists are just as violent as right wing activists and Darren Huff is automatically president   (gawker.com) divider line 270
    More: Strange, Occupy Wall Street, objections, Wall Street, activists, Zuccotti Park, right-wing  
•       •       •

3565 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 May 2014 at 11:47 PM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



270 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-07 12:25:48 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

OWS had some great ideas and a ton of energy, but no direction and abysmal organization.  It's a shame that the potential there was mostly wasted.  They helped get the conversation started, but it could have been so much more if someone had managed to take charge, distill the message into some accessible soundbites, and do some halfway decent PR work to focus the media.


They were more interested in the internal dynamics of their increasingly irrelevant "movement" then they were in affecting any sort of actual change.

I agreed with their core message, but the people involved were clowns.
 
2014-05-07 12:30:02 PM

Fenstery: It was a lost opportunity since they focused on the people benefiting from the problem rather than focusing on any specific solution to the problem and putting pressure on those who could actually affect change.


No it wasn't.

They brought the attention to policy-makers and said, "Fix it. It's broken."

Most Americans can't tell you how budgets and policies are made. They do know when the outcomes are affecting them negatively. Just because the OWS people didn't have all the solutions doesn't mean it was a waste of time.

In fact, if they would have drawn up specifics, the message would likely have been bogged down in the mud of everyone attacking those specifics, instead of looking at the crappy outcome of the status quo.
 
2014-05-07 12:34:35 PM

whidbey: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Article: An Occupy Wall Street activist faces up to seven years in prison

Headline: Occupy Wall Street protester sentenced to seven years

I say this with all sincerity - fark you to whichever mod greenlit this. Seriously. I know that inaccurate and misleading headlines are often used for humor, or hyperbole, or clickbait, but this is just some stupid shiat right here.

OWS is a football that some of Fark's centrist-right to right-leaning posters love to kick around.

It just wasn't the kind of democracy they approve of. Too many people with their own minds not wanting to do it their way.


Wow.  Whidbey doesn't approve of Fark's centrist-right (every one else would call them leftt-wing) because too many people with their own minds not wanting to do it their way.

Cluestick:  Twelve New York City jurors unanimously found her guilty (including 8 grope aware women).  In less than three hours.  Hundred weren't charged.  Sorry, but this violent extremist reaped what she sowed after assaulting a blue-collar union person.  She's less than one percent of those arrested.
 
2014-05-07 12:35:28 PM

mrshowrules: but to press charges on top of that is completely unnecessary IMHO.


It is entirely necessary.  If you want to see why I will politely remind you what happens when a person gets arrested but never charged in court in these situations: it becomes, in the minds of the people arguing, an indisputable proof that police had no cause to take any action ever, and therefore they are automatically in the wrong.

So the result is the growing trend that in any law enforcement action where the investigated/detained/what-have-you individual is grumpy enough to make a stink about it later, he gets cited for as much as legally possible. No breaks are given, because the second a break is given there is a paperwork trail that doesn't support the actions the cop took in the first place.

If I get pulled over for a broken tail light, I don't even get cited for it.  If someone gets pulled over for one and refuses to talk beyond calling the guy a pig and screaming about his fourth amendment rights, you bet your ass he gets a ticket. Some of that is merely the attitude test, but a lot of it is ass-covering on the part of the officer involved too. The first question asked when the story goes to the press later (likely with a repaired tail light) is going to be "if he REALLY pulled him over for the tail light, why didn't he issue a ticket, AHA it is lies all the way down"


Police lack the ability to take a fight to the press in these matters. This woman can go on tv and say whatever she feels like and then change her story in court. She can show whatever edited version of video she wants, for the clips that she wants.  The police department has one option: take the fight to court and prove her guilt. Which makes sense, I don't think we want our police departments going full-bore media smearing on everyone they arrest. They aren't supposed to be using the media to establish guilt and subsequently taint as many jury pools as possible. That is a freedom that only the defendant has. Our justice system sucks bad enough without prosecutors still in office going full nancy grace 24/7.
 
2014-05-07 12:36:30 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: They brought the attention to policy-makers and said, "Fix it. It's broken."


Even Newt was spending the primary attacking the rich guys. That would never have happened without OWS.
 
2014-05-07 12:36:47 PM
Hey, does anybody remember that time a bunch of white conservative nutters told the government to pound sand, and the government just left them alone because they didn't want to start anything?

Oops, did I say "white conservative"?  Sorry, I meant "black liberal." And by "left them alone", I meant "dropped a bomb on them, killing 5 children."  I just can't get anything right today.
 
2014-05-07 12:37:46 PM

udhq: Frank N Stein: Why are leftist protestors such pushovers in the country compared to rightist protestors?

Lol wat.

It's the right-wing protesters who claim tyranny and victimization for being held to any sort of accountability.  See: Bundy's son, the "political prisoner" who assaulted 2 cops.

Meanwhile, peaceful, unarmed OWSers are routinely teargassed, beaten, wrongfully arrested and sexually assaulted, yet they've lasted longer than any other modern protest movement.


Seems to me that being beaten and sexually assaults is being pushed the fark over pretty hard. Meanwhile, rightist protestors carry around guns openly and the police are scared to fark with them
 
2014-05-07 12:39:36 PM

udhq: Hey, does anybody remember that time a bunch of white conservative nutters told the government to pound sand, and the government just left them alone because they didn't want to start anything?

Oops, did I say "white conservative"?  Sorry, I meant "black liberal." And by "left them alone", I meant "dropped a bomb on them, killing 5 children."  I just can't get anything right today.


And don't even get me started on the treatment of so-called "eco-terrorists" who have never killed ANYONE on record, vs. the treatment of pro-life terrorists who have killed hundreds.....

The fact is that the government treats conservative protest movements with kid gloves, and liberal protest movements with ACTUAL tyranny and brutality.
 
2014-05-07 12:44:00 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Sometimes it's better to work within the system.


How so? How could they justify "working within the system" when that very system is what failed them? Anyone put forth as a spokesperson would either be destroyed through accusations, dirty tricks and innuendo (no one is perfectly clean), or co-opted by all the money flowing through that system from the opposition.  I'm still wondering if the Powers That Be thought that OWS were just a bunch of ineffectual flower children banging drums, why the concerted (and expensive) effort to destroy them? Could they have been right all along, and that's what scared The Powers so badly? Is that why they are still a topic of discussion today?

Billy Bathsalt: I actually talked to one of their local leaders. I said they should have two demands, three at the most. Something like "re-institute the Glass Steagall Act, CCC or similar to repair infrastructure, bail out those who have really tried to pay off their mortgages..." stuff like that. I lost consciousness at about hour two of his response.


Have you ever thought that the problems they were protesting were A. of many different types B. very complex C.more than just a few D. all of the above?  I'm sorry if all the sh*t that's wrong can't be boiled down to a few soundbites or a slogan for t-shirts and bumper stickers so that those in Flyoverville with attention spans rivaling goldfish don't have to think so hard. The types of issues they have in some cases have been festering for decades, and in that festering they have wrapped in on themselves like the world's largest ball of twine. Add to that the fact that there are people whose wealth and power depend on that ball of string being as tightly wound and knotted as possible, and the problems multiply.

The world is a very very complex place, and humanity makes it more complicated with each passing day.
 
2014-05-07 12:45:51 PM

udhq: udhq: Hey, does anybody remember that time a bunch of white conservative nutters told the government to pound sand, and the government just left them alone because they didn't want to start anything?

Oops, did I say "white conservative"?  Sorry, I meant "black liberal." And by "left them alone", I meant "dropped a bomb on them, killing 5 children, after they opened fire on the cops."  I just can't get anything right today.

And don't even get me started on the treatment of so-called "eco-terrorists" who have never killed ANYONE on record, vs. the treatment of pro-life terrorists who have killed hundreds8.....

The fact is that the government treats conservative protest movements with kid gloves, and liberal protest movements with ACTUAL tyranny and brutality.


FTFY.
 
2014-05-07 12:48:44 PM

Frank N Stein: Seems to me that being beaten and sexually assaults is being pushed the fark over pretty hard. Meanwhile, rightist protestors carry around guns openly and the police are scared to fark with them


It's only "being pushed over" if you let it silence the protest.  Any cursory reading of history shows that liberals are willing to make sacrifices to bring to moral depravity of their oppressors under the microscope.

Meanwhile, conservatives are not even willing to endure mild discomfort for what they believe in.  There were no lawn chairs at Kent State or Birmingham or Delhi.
 
2014-05-07 12:50:21 PM

udhq: Hey, does anybody remember that time a bunch of white conservative nutters told the government to pound sand, and the government just left them alone because they didn't want to start anything?

Oops, did I say "white conservative"?  Sorry, I meant "black liberal." And by "left them alone", I meant "dropped a bomb on them, killing 5 children."  I just can't get anything right today.


The one where the government later called its own act unconscionable and paid out millions in damages?

I know you want to make this a full on left vs. right argument, and I despise these idiot ranchers and their ethos.  However, we also have WACO, where a bunch of right-wing nutters got taken out (depending on which story you want to believe, I guess - though I would find it amusing if the farkers who don't trust the cops or government ever will take their word for it in this thread at this time that the fire was an accident because it suits the narrative of the moment).  

Now we have today, where the government is taking the time and care reduce the chance of such an incident occurring again.  It isn't because Bundy is a right-wing, it is because the government finally learned its lesson and has other methods to use and hopefully the maintained patience to use them.  I won't take two actions 20 years apart and conclude that 20 years of government response have been based on left vs. right wing politics unless you bring me more information supporting it.  The FBI itself, even under Bush, was concluding that right-wing hate groups posed the most likely threat of domestic terrorism. If the FBI and other government agencies are so compromised by right/left bias, why would those reports exist?

And honestly, when it is possible, I prefer my law enforcement to take their sweet time.  We had a barricaded gunman in the area last summer and the cops just blocked the street for 12 hours and he got tired and gave up.  Could the cops have stormed in and won? Sure.  But why not just hang back and do nothing a while if the guy barricaded in his house is not doing anything at the moment?  They should not have bombed MOVE, and they probably made the right decision not to press for a shootout in the Bundy incident.
 
2014-05-07 12:55:09 PM

udhq: And don't even get me started on the treatment of so-called "eco-terrorists" who have never killed ANYONE on record, vs. the treatment of pro-life terrorists who have killed hundreds.....


Please get started. Tell us how great ELF is and the details of unequal treatment of abortion bombers and eco-bombers.  Which pro-life terrorists were treated well after killing hundreds, and which big name eco-terrorists received excessive responses after bombing stuff and setting fires?
 
2014-05-07 01:03:05 PM
Has anyone pointed out that OWS was stupid because the dirty hippies in the park all sold drugs with their iPhones and that a literal interpretation of the "1%" would include three million people who are not all exactly identical to each other in every way, and therefore every criticism of wealth inequality is invalid?
 
2014-05-07 01:07:12 PM

Smackledorfer: I know you want to make this a full on left vs. right argument, and I despise these idiot ranchers and their ethos. However, we also have WACO, where a bunch of right-wing nutters got taken out (depending on which story you want to believe, I guess - though I would find it amusing if the farkers who don't trust the cops or government ever will take their word for it in this thread at this time that the fire was an accident because it suits the narrative of the moment).


If you honestly believe that government agents set 3 separate fires with accelerants within the Waco compound, then there's really nothing more to discuss.  I'll take the ruling of multiple independent investigations over the conspiracy theories based on the words of a psychotic pedophile who wanted nothing more than martyrdom, and repeatedly said as much.

I for one, prefer to live in a country where the rule of law is enforced without regard to the political views or weapons ownership of the suspect.  If someone thinks they have a right to violently oppose the rule of law, they should be met with overwhelming force.  Otherwise, you get situations like in Bunkerville, where a small patch of the United States has essentially come under the rule of a 3rd-world style warlord.
 
2014-05-07 01:08:32 PM

rewind2846: How could they justify "working within the system" when that very system is what failed them?


This is extremely vague, and I am not sure how to respond without you saying I put words in your mouth.  But the simplest answer is: our political system's greatest failure is lack of participation by the people.

rewind2846: Anyone put forth as a spokesperson would either be destroyed through accusations, dirty tricks and innuendo (no one is perfectly clean),


Tons of people make it through massive levels of scandal. It is by no means guaranteed that anyone tying themselves to OWS would immediately or easily destroyed.  Conservatives cannot even succeed in destroying Al Sharpton. You think they would easily wipe out someone taking the populist view on income inequality?

Also, while everyone has SOME dirt on them, not everyone has major skeletons in their closet. If the tea party movement has shown us anything, it is that if anything it is even harder to successfully tear apart the people riding these political waves.


rewind2846: or co-opted by all the money flowing through that system from the opposition.


Which is why we have to keep working within the system. Our grandparents shouldn't have gotten lazy, our parents shouldn't have been too busy, and we shouldn't write the system off now.  If Elizabeth Warren turns into a shill, we should be prepared to replace her.  Any democratic system, whether direct or otherwise, requires vigilance. One cannot logically point to the bad results when people are not vigilant and say the system is broken any more than republicans can reasonable cut funding to a program and later say "check it out, that program cannot work, hurpity derp".

And what system, exactly, would you replace representative democracy with? How would it perform better? Given the current problems we face could have been prevented by a more vigilant and informed voting base, in which direction is the solution?


Ranting about THE POWERS (two can play at unnecessary capitalizing) is a little silly to begin with, but I suspect you don't even know what you mean when you use a nebulous term like "the system" the way you do.  Because the only way to change it significantly from without is a popular revolt and the creation of a new government. I doubt you are that nutty though.
 
2014-05-07 01:13:07 PM

Smackledorfer: Please get started. Tell us how great ELF is and the details of unequal treatment of abortion bombers and eco-bombers. Which pro-life terrorists were treated well after killing hundreds, and which big name eco-terrorists received excessive responses after bombing stuff and setting fires?


All you need to know is that on September 10, 2001, it was the official position of the Bush administration that eco-terrorist groups were the #1 target of federal anti-terrorism efforts.
 
2014-05-07 01:16:27 PM

udhq: If you honestly believe that government agents set 3 separate fires with accelerants within the Waco compound,


I highly doubt it is the case, but I doubt it more on occam's razor grounds than anything else.

You, otoh, trust "independent agencies" while ranting about a conspiracy level of bias within those very agencies. That is my point.

You aren't really making any logical argument beyond pointing to two events 20 years apart and screaming "why can't we bomb them too, no fair".  Well, I don't want a government so incapable of change that it feels the need to repeat a terrible action against a group on side because it wants to be fair to the other side.

udhq: If someone thinks they have a right to violently oppose the rule of law, they should be met with overwhelming force.


So you support the bombing against MOVE, then, and wish subsequently that the Bundy incident had resulted in a shootout?


Of course, maybe someone who comes in late to a thread about an OWS protester arrested and charged and spins off into a frenzy about MOVE and ELF is just trolling to begin with or needs his meds tweaked.
 
2014-05-07 01:26:17 PM

rewind2846: TuteTibiImperes: Sometimes it's better to work within the system.


How so? How could they justify "working within the system" when that very system is what failed them?


They could justify it by reading a farking book. Our nation has faced seemingly intractable problems in the past, and with the exception of the Civil War, we've always been able to address them within the liberal republican democratic system that our founders constructed.

Our grandparents had it harder than us during the Depression, but they still managed to summon the political will to change things. They wanted a new deal, so they supported and elected candidates that would give it to them.

Our generation isn't special; we're just the latest players in an ongoing struggle. Throwing up your hands and walking away from the process only helps those you oppose.
 
2014-05-07 01:37:48 PM

Fenstery: The Larch: Has anyone pointed out that OWS was stupid because the dirty hippies in the park all sold drugs with their iPhones and that a literal interpretation of the "1%" would include three million people who are not all exactly identical to each other in every way, and therefore every criticism of wealth inequality is invalid?

No

It was stupid because they focused on the people benefitting from the problem not the solution

It would be as if the global warming crowd totally focused on who is benefiting from oil sales instead of calls for regulation, taxes, conservation, alternate energy, and so on. You know things that could mitigate the global warming impacts


Thank you! I imagined I had already heard every dishonest talking point designed to shutdown conversation with illogical fallacies. I'm glad you contributed another one.
 
2014-05-07 01:47:32 PM

Smackledorfer: You, otoh, trust "independent agencies" while ranting about a conspiracy level of bias within those very agencies. That is my point.

You aren't really making any logical argument beyond pointing to two events 20 years apart and screaming "why can't we bomb them too, no fair". Well, I don't want a government so incapable of change that it feels the need to repeat a terrible action against a group on side because it wants to be fair to the other side.


I haven't said anything about a conspiracy among law enforcement, you're the one making crazy, Art Bell-ish claims about Waco.  You're either responding to someone else's posts, or simply debating the things you wish I had said, because it's easier than debating the things I actually said,

I have, on the other hand, pointed out our cultural bias that accepts violence against blacks and liberals, but not against whites and conservatives.

And while I don't want the Bundy ranch to bombed, I wouldn't object to more of a law-enforcement presence in the area as a statement that despite your guns, you still fall under the jurisdiction of the rule of law.
 
2014-05-07 02:02:51 PM

udhq: I have, on the other hand, pointed out our cultural bias that accepts violence against blacks and liberals, but not against whites and conservatives.


Is "pointing out" code for lying about the magnitude of anti-abortion deaths?

Is "pointing out" also code for ignoring things like Waco?
 
2014-05-07 02:05:40 PM

udhq: Frank N Stein: Seems to me that being beaten and sexually assaults is being pushed the fark over pretty hard. Meanwhile, rightist protestors carry around guns openly and the police are scared to fark with them

It's only "being pushed over" if you let it silence the protest.  Any cursory reading of history shows that liberals are willing to make sacrifices to bring to moral depravity of their oppressors under the microscope.

Meanwhile, conservatives are not even willing to endure mild discomfort for what they believe in.  There were no lawn chairs at Kent State or Birmingham or Delhi.



Any cursory look into history will show that conservatives, or "the right" if you will, have also fraught and died for their beliefs. Especially in Europe. But at the risk of sounding like I'm moving goalposts, I'd like to clarify that I meant liberals in this country in contemporary times are too beholden to pacifism, and thus have essentially made themselves pushovers. 
Of course I'm sure some will jump to say "well, look at the civil rights movement. Doesn't that prove that non violence works?". Well, who continues to make up the largest portion of incarcerated people? Who continues to have high levels of poverty? 
Above all, non violent civil disobedience serves the power structure. It makes it easy to control a movement, and makes it easy to essentially disband it once a few token concessions are made
Now, there's nothing inherently violent about having guns at a protest. But it does send a clear message that the person carrying will kill another if they must. Meanwhile, OWS protesters were beaten and arrested, and the movement is all but dead.
 
2014-05-07 02:30:17 PM

liam76: Is "pointing out" code for lying about the magnitude of anti-abortion deaths?

Is "pointing out" also code for ignoring things like Waco?


If anything I low-balled anti-abortion deaths.  You forget the thousands of women who have died because they were intimidated away from medical facilities, and into dangerous, back-alley procedures.

Also, I don't think you're making the point you think you are about Waco.  A lot of people use "Waco" as shorthand for violence by an overbearing government, when in reality it was a right-wing nut job murdering 75 people so he didn't have to face charges for his pedophilia.
 
2014-05-07 02:39:16 PM

Smackledorfer: Ranting about THE POWERS (two can play at unnecessary capitalizing) is a little silly to begin with, but I suspect you don't even know what you mean when you use a nebulous term like "the system" the way you do.


The system that infuses politics will billions (with a B) of dollars before a single vote is even cast. That in itself skews the result.
The system that has engineered the increase of wealth in a segment of the population unseen since the gilded age.
The system that takes what few rights the people have to privacy, to self determination, and to personhood and hands them over to corporations.
The system that actually gives legal rights to those same corporations.
The system that will try a person under 18 as an adult, but will not give that same person the rights as an adult.

I could go on all day, but I know exactly what I mean by "the system" and so did the OWS people I still communicate with. It's a shame that you don't.
The opportunities, faith and promise in this nation most of their parents and their parents parents enjoyed are goner, shipped away, bought up or sold off by people who now own more and more of everything, from the media to food production to water to medical care.

This is the most educated generation that has ever been here, people who followed the paradigms this society and their parents prompted them to, yet still they find themselves at 30 worse off than those parents were when they started in the workforce. I can hear it in my niece and her late 20-something friends... they are scared. None owns a house. Only one that I know of has a child. Just a few have 401(k) accounts, others don't bother or can't get them. My parents bought their first house at 22 in 1964, my brother bought his first at 26 in 1990, with neither of them having attended college.

And it's not that they don't want to settle down, it's that they know they can't. Any day now the job they have will dry up, and they will have to move - no house for you. When the job goes, so will school for the kids - no friends for you. They have also seen what "downsizing" has done to many of their parents, people who thought that they would actually be able to retire but who will now be working until they die. Go look at your local fast food joint and count all the middle aged (and older) people behind the counter for proof. 30 years ago the only one you would have seen was the manager.

There's your system, where the people at the top of the socioeconomic ladder have made sure to remove as many of the rungs below them on their way up, and have used that power and money to make sure that not only do they stay where they are, but that no one makes any new rungs.
 
2014-05-07 02:46:19 PM

Frank N Stein: Any cursory look into history will show that conservatives, or "the right" if you will, have also fraught and died for their beliefs. Especially in Europe. But at the risk of sounding like I'm moving goalposts, I'd like to clarify that I meant liberals in this country in contemporary times are too beholden to pacifism, and thus have essentially made themselves pushovers.
Of course I'm sure some will jump to say "well, look at the civil rights movement. Doesn't that prove that non violence works?". Well, who continues to make up the largest portion of incarcerated people? Who continues to have high levels of poverty?
Above all, non violent civil disobedience serves the power structure. It makes it easy to control a movement, and makes it easy to essentially disband it once a few token concessions are made
Now, there's nothing inherently violent about having guns at a protest. But it does send a clear message that the person carrying will kill another if they must. Meanwhile, OWS protesters were beaten and arrested, and the movement is all but dead.


Your not entirely wrong in this point, but I would still disagree on the best long-term strategy for social change.

Yes, African American people are still not equal.  But I can't think of another example in human history where a subjugated people have come so far in such a relatively short length of time.

On the other hand, take Israel; Most people in the world community acknowledged the moral legitimacy of the modern state of Israel amid it's founding in 1948. And though I wouldn't place the blame for the ongoing conflict on their shoulders alone, their embrace of violence and militarism has created a shift wherein I believe we're inevitably heading towards a 2 state solution.  That would have been unthinkable 50 years ago.

Or look at Bundy.  He clearly sees himself as an American version of the Tienanmen Square tank man.  Most of the public, however, see him as a thug using his weapons to steal from the American people.  He may have bought himself a few weeks of time due to our inherent cultural biases, but because he resorted to using the threat of violence, he is clearly not going to go down in history as the hero he seems to think he is.
 
2014-05-07 03:09:19 PM

Fenstery: Worked for suffrage, civil rights, gay rights.


Those are easy things to verbalize.

Suffrage: Give women suffrage.
Civil rights: Codify civil rights.
Gay rights: Codify gay rights.

Economic policy is a maze of tax laws, benefits laws, spending practices, deceptive and misleading propaganda, lobbyists, etc., etc. Lawmakers are supposed to be able to find solutions to these complex problems.

It's like going to IT to say, "My computer is broken. It's not working right." You shouldn't have to be able to say you have a bad RAM module in slot 3 before it gets fixed. You should be able to describe the problem and let the expert figure out how to fix it.
 
2014-05-07 03:11:10 PM

firefly212: tbeatty: some_beer_drinker: this is outrageous. she is a political prisoner of the 1%

whidbey: Maybe she'll get parole after a couple of years.

But yeah, this is bullshiat. I would be appealing the fark out of this ruling.

hurr durr derp derp derp.  How do appeals work? (hint: the appeals court only considers the law, not facts of the case already determined by the jury - what process or law did you think the judge missed or were you just hurr durring outrage?)

It's idiotic reasoning like yours that led her to court and felony conviction of violence.  I doubt she'll get any prison time that is beyond 3 months.  Her problem is turning down a misdemeanor plea bargain to double down with a violent felony.  That will show up on any future traffic stop on the cops computer (they flag assault on a LEO for the rest of her life) and every single job background report.  Also, she loses her right to vote and is pretty much banned from international travel as most countries reject visits by violent felons.  Congratulations on turning the misdemeanor disorderly conduct plea bargain into convicted felon!  I hope she was silver spoon protester that has a fat lawyer bill so the taxpayer isn't funding any more of her stupidity.

But keep choking that chicken.  You and she need this bit of Faber wisdom: "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life."

How about a face full of STFU?. (she lost at court too).

[www.arktimes.com image 500x281]

tbeatty, the judge made some questionable decisions by not allowing the jury to hear that the officer in question has numerous violations on his record for excessive force, and has filed inaccurate police reports. In a case that hedged so heavily on testimony, as the video was not allowed into evidence, the judge made it a he said/she said case, but nixed the ability of the defense to point out that the officer in question has been caught lying before and using excessive force before. IMO, if she gets decent lawyers, she has a shot on ...


exactly she has every right to appeal that the judge decided those elements incorrectly

The is like a perfect storm of the LEO appology brigade meeting the faulty FARK law license brigade.
 
2014-05-07 03:15:07 PM

udhq: Smackledorfer: You, otoh, trust "independent agencies" while ranting about a conspiracy level of bias within those very agencies. That is my point.

You aren't really making any logical argument beyond pointing to two events 20 years apart and screaming "why can't we bomb them too, no fair". Well, I don't want a government so incapable of change that it feels the need to repeat a terrible action against a group on side because it wants to be fair to the other side.

I haven't said anything about a conspiracy among law enforcement, you're the one making crazy, Art Bell-ish claims about Waco.  You're either responding to someone else's posts, or simply debating the things you wish I had said, because it's easier than debating the things I actually said,

I have, on the other hand, pointed out our cultural bias that accepts violence against blacks and liberals, but not against whites and conservatives.

And while I don't want the Bundy ranch to bombed, I wouldn't object to more of a law-enforcement presence in the area as a statement that despite your guns, you still fall under the jurisdiction of the rule of law.


That last paragraph is quite the walkback from 'smash with overwhelming force'.

And again since you are slow: I brought up waco as an example of how the gov still uses that force against right wingers.

I mentioned the conspiracy of them lighting the fire because you insist that these government agencies knowlingly discriminate against libs.

A more sane explanation is that they've simply gotten better over the twenty years since MOVE, and not a twenty year bias.
 
2014-05-07 03:16:11 PM

udhq: Smackledorfer: Please get started. Tell us how great ELF is and the details of unequal treatment of abortion bombers and eco-bombers. Which pro-life terrorists were treated well after killing hundreds, and which big name eco-terrorists received excessive responses after bombing stuff and setting fires?

All you need to know is that on September 10, 2001, it was the official position of the Bush administration that eco-terrorist groups were the #1 target of federal anti-terrorism efforts.


This is an insanely idiotic response.
 
2014-05-07 03:17:44 PM

rewind2846: Smackledorfer: Ranting about THE POWERS (two can play at unnecessary capitalizing) is a little silly to begin with, but I suspect you don't even know what you mean when you use a nebulous term like "the system" the way you do.

The system that infuses politics will billions (with a B) of dollars before a single vote is even cast. That in itself skews the result.
The system that has engineered the increase of wealth in a segment of the population unseen since the gilded age.
The system that takes what few rights the people have to privacy, to self determination, and to personhood and hands them over to corporations.
The system that actually gives legal rights to those same corporations.
The system that will try a person under 18 as an adult, but will not give that same person the rights as an adult.

I could go on all day, but I know exactly what I mean by "the system" and so did the OWS people I still communicate with. It's a shame that you don't.
The opportunities, faith and promise in this nation most of their parents and their parents parents enjoyed are goner, shipped away, bought up or sold off by people who now own more and more of everything, from the media to food production to water to medical care.

This is the most educated generation that has ever been here, people who followed the paradigms this society and their parents prompted them to, yet still they find themselves at 30 worse off than those parents were when they started in the workforce. I can hear it in my niece and her late 20-something friends... they are scared. None owns a house. Only one that I know of has a child. Just a few have 401(k) accounts, others don't bother or can't get them. My parents bought their first house at 22 in 1964, my brother bought his first at 26 in 1990, with neither of them having attended college.

And it's not that they don't want to settle down, it's that they know they can't. Any day now the job they have will dry up, and they will have to move - no house for you. When the job goes, so will school for the kids - no friends for you. They have also seen what "downsizing" has done to many of their parents, people who thought that they would actually be able to retire but who will now be working until they die. Go look at your local fast food joint and count all the middle aged (and older) people behind the counter for proof. 30 years ago the only one you would have seen was the manager.

There's your system, where the people at the top of the socioeconomic ladder have made sure to remove as many of the rungs below them on their way up, and have used that power and money to make sure that not only do they stay where they are, but that no one makes any new rungs.


The point.

You--------------->
 
2014-05-07 03:22:36 PM
I think this case proves that no matter how blatantly a police officer lies in court, a jury will believe him. Motherfarker couldn't even remember which side he got hit on.

Serve on juries, don't believe cops.
 
2014-05-07 03:27:53 PM

Smackledorfer: The point.


Well, maybe I should have used fewer words. Or shorter ones. Sorry.
 
2014-05-07 03:35:48 PM

rewind2846: Smackledorfer: The point.

Well, maybe I should have used fewer words. Or shorter ones. Sorry.


Very well, I am busy for a bit but if you prefer I'll explain paragraph by paragraph why your response missed the point entirely.

Would you like that?
 
2014-05-07 03:45:00 PM

Fenstery: Pick your billionaire. Gates, Ellison, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Page, Buffet, Oprah, Geffen, Koch, Bloomberg, Lucas. They didn't get there by removing rungs for others to advance. In fact, many created new ladders or higher rungs in their industries.


Bezos made his fortune on the backs of poorly compensated warehouse employees, and Bloomberg by extracting rents on Wall Street.

And the Kochs... I don't know the details of their business operations, but removing rungs on the economic ladder seems to be their favorite pastime.
 
2014-05-07 03:48:26 PM

Fenstery: Lenny_da_Hog: Fenstery: Worked for suffrage, civil rights, gay rights.

Those are easy things to verbalize.

Suffrage: Give women suffrage.
Civil rights: Codify civil rights.
Gay rights: Codify gay rights.

Economic policy is a maze of tax laws, benefits laws, spending practices, deceptive and misleading propaganda, lobbyists, etc., etc. Lawmakers are supposed to be able to find solutions to these complex problems.

It's like going to IT to say, "My computer is broken. It's not working right." You shouldn't have to be able to say you have a bad RAM module in slot 3 before it gets fixed. You should be able to describe the problem and let the expert figure out how to fix it.

Ok
How about global warming?
That is more complex with more moving parts.

There they were able to come up a set of recommendations: alternate energy, conservation, carbon tax and credits and so on.

They didn't just whine "oh look all those oil companies and countries are benefiting from this!"


Considering climate change was discovered by a body of scientists (experts), it's a different sort of issue. Those scientists came up with the eventual necessary measures to curb it.

Still, just because protesters in the past *have* offered solutions to solve problems doesn't mean that any protests that *don't* are somehow a waste of time. Pointing out symptoms without knowing the disease just means that somebody else needs to find and treat that disease, it doesn't mean the symptoms are unimportant.
 
2014-05-07 03:52:38 PM

Fenstery: Oh. And your IT analogy doesn't really work because (usually) IT feels the responsibility to actually solve the problem.

To use your analogy what do you do when IT is an integral part of the problem? You don't get anywhere by complaining to the CEO that your computer is broken.

OWS should have taken this to washington and forced the dialog on the tax code, the lack of regulations on finance and whatever else could improve the income inequality issue


OWS was a nationwide series of mostly local protesters who probably couldn't afford to take a long trip to Washington only to be quietly ignored or patronized by legislators.

Instead, they very cost-effectively brought the issue to the news, as protests will do. They got noticed, cheap.

What OWS accomplished was to make other people who thought, "You know, maybe I'm getting screwed by current policy" know that they weren't imagining things -- that there were a lot of other people thinking the same thing. That increased the dialogue and direction of economic policy. That is not a waste of time.
 
2014-05-07 04:26:25 PM

Smackledorfer: Very well, I am busy for a bit but if you prefer I'll explain paragraph by paragraph why your response missed the point entirely.

Would you like that?


Please do. Use plenty of space so that I may refute your explanation, with quotes and reasoning from my friends who participated in OWS here on the west coast.

Fenstery: Pick your billionaire. Gates, Ellison, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Page, Buffet, Oprah, Geffen, Koch, Bloomberg, Lucas. They didn't get there by removing rungs for others to advance. In fact, many created new ladders or higher rungs in their industries.


Notice that the majority of the billionaires you chose are liberals. They are not the ones cutting the rungs out BECAUSE they are liberals... that's part of what makes them liberals. Unfortunately, that label doesn't fit the majority of famous (and infamous) people in their category, and those are the ones whom OWS is protesting. It's the same as when the right tries to portray wealthy people as "the hated" and everyone else as "the envious", when what they cannot understand is that the 99% don't "envy" the 1%, what they don't like is when that 1% uses their power and money to run the lives of the 99%.

Take the Koch brothers for example... they already have more money than anyone can even count in a lifetime, yet instead of doing good works or helping people or just chillin' on a private island on a bed of hundred dollar bills, what do they do? They spend millions on campaigns to lie about Climate Change. They spend more millions on republican conservative candidates and campaigns, many of who are TeaParty candidates who want to outlaw abortion, repeal or eliminate the minimum wage, welfare, EBT and the ACA, inject their religion (and only their religion) into every facet of american life and law, and more. In essence, remaking the country and by extension the world in their own image of "Atlas Shrugged".

And why? Because they are assholes, and they can.

So yeah, it's not Speilberg or Streisand or Ellison who are being protested, and no one is being protested because they are rich... it's how they got their money and more importantly what they are doing with that money that is the catalyst for protest. They are being protested for being assholes.
 
2014-05-07 04:26:39 PM

Smackledorfer: And again since you are slow: I brought up waco as an example of how the gov still uses that force against right wingers.

I mentioned the conspiracy of them lighting the fire because you insist that these government agencies knowlingly discriminate against libs.


Again, you seem to be arguing against what you wish I was saying rather than what I've actually said.  It's much easier to win an argument when you are making up both sides, isn't it?

You're the only one here talking about law-enforcement conspiracies, I'm simply saying that societies in general tend to be biased towards the status quo.  Existing social conditions tend not to have happened by accident, so threats to that status quo (more often than not presented as liberalism) tend to be met with greater fear, hostility, and yes, violence than protest movements advocating a present or previous status quo.

And I don't know how bringing up a right-wing religious conservative who murdered 75 people to avoid prosecution for child-sex abuse somehow constitutes an argument
 
2014-05-07 04:28:53 PM

udhq: And I don't know how bringing up a right-wing religious conservative who murdered 75 people to avoid prosecution for child-sex abuse somehow constitutes an argument against the point I am making.


(last line cut off)
 
2014-05-07 04:30:04 PM

TheBigJerk: Especially considering the media, rather than organizing things directly and boosting them, was actively trying to bury them.

[i75.photobucket.com image 500x336]


Now if you are to consider that picture you posted and the general trend of police militarization, I am amazed there are so many on the left that want to get guns out of the hands of citizens.  The gun issue is probably the singular issue the right wingers are correct about.  I think your picture puts the exclamation point as to why.  Yes there was an issue of favoritism, but that isn't everything.  Police are not going to play the paramilitary beat-down game against a group of protesters that can actually fight back if pushed into a corner.  They just are not.

I'd like you to imagine how the OWS protests might have went if we where as heavily armed and ready to brandish said arms as the teatards.  Yes some bad stuff might have happened, and yet I think the police might have handled the whole affair FAR differently.  Instead they knew they had a monopoly of force and used that knowledge to further the aims of the 0.1%.

Yeah we have the moral high ground.  The moral high ground has yielded victory in the past... back when we had a real independent press.  But the 0.1% now control the media so that isn't exactly going to get us anywhere this time.  And as much as some on the left like to say how guns are useless versus our military... I'd point out that our military is used to kill the poor people of OTHER countries.  Because the servicemen are largely recruited from the poor of this country if can't really be used against us easily.  That is where the police come in.  Well the police don't have cruise missiles.  We can stand up and say enough is enough.

Next time we have a OWS type rally/protest/etc - we need to come armed.  This isn't about making threats or promoting violence.  It is about making it well known that we will defend ourselves this time, should the tragic need arise.  It is a sad statement of fact about the state of the world and even America "the land of the free," but we may well be past the time that meaningful change can occur by pretty words alone.  When talking about guns, I think the left needs to wake the fark up to reality.
 
2014-05-07 04:37:31 PM

Smackledorfer: All you need to know is that on September 10, 2001, it was the official position of the Bush administration that eco-terrorist groups were the #1 target of federal anti-terrorism efforts.

This is an insanely idiotic response.


It also has the unfortunate distinction of being 100% true.
 
2014-05-07 04:42:25 PM

Fenstery: You said it "increased the dialog and direction of economic policy". Did anything actually change with regard to the economic policy?


In any other movement that you mentioned, like civil rights or climate change, did policy change overnight or did it take several years?

It's become a political issue. That's the first step. 

65% -- According to a Pew Research poll from December 2013, that's the number of Americans who think the income gap between the rich and the poor has grown in the last three years. Of those 65 percent of respondents, only 3 percent think that's a good thing. A month later, President Obama geared a large part of his State of the Union address toward that 65 percent of the population:
 
2014-05-07 05:01:22 PM

udhq: If anything I low-balled anti-abortion deaths. You forget the thousands of women who have died because they were intimidated away from medical facilities, and into dangerous, back-alley procedures.


Those aren't deaths at the hand of "anti abortion terrorists", which was your claim.

Admit it, you pulled a number out of your ass and were grossly wrong.


udhq: Also, I don't think you're making the point you think you are about Waco. A lot of people use "Waco" as shorthand for violence by an overbearing government, when in reality it was a right-wing nut job murdering 75 people so he didn't have to face charges for his pedophilia


I am not debating that they are responsible, I am pointing out the fact that the govt was raiding a "right wing white" group using force, and were prepared for a shootout (which they got to an extent). You are wrong about the govt having double standards on actions like this based off the race or political leaning of the groups in questions.
 
2014-05-07 05:08:39 PM

udhq: Smackledorfer: And again since you are slow: I brought up waco as an example of how the gov still uses that force against right wingers.

I mentioned the conspiracy of them lighting the fire because you insist that these government agencies knowlingly discriminate against libs.

Again, you seem to be arguing against what you wish I was saying rather than what I've actually said.  It's much easier to win an argument when you are making up both sides, isn't it?

You're the only one here talking about law-enforcement conspiracies, I'm simply saying that societies in general tend to be biased towards the status quo.  Existing social conditions tend not to have happened by accident, so threats to that status quo (more often than not presented as liberalism) tend to be met with greater fear, hostility, and yes, violence than protest movements advocating a present or previous status quo.

And I don't know how bringing up a right-wing religious conservative who murdered 75 people to avoid prosecution for child-sex abuse somehow constitutes an argument


You don't consider the multuple LE agencies working together to, using your examples, drop bombs on nutty liberals but retreat from crazy cowboys, spanning a period of over two decades, topped off with the claim that they are biased against elf but somehow friendlier to abortion clinic bombers, to be a conspiracy?

Odd.
 
2014-05-07 05:35:59 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: whidbey: Not lying about anything. Though I will say that by skimming that link, it's a different thread.

You got your ass handed to you in the other one. Perhaps that isn't relevant here at all, but it still formulated quite an opinion.


Put up or shut up, liar. It's not a different thread. That's a thread showing me consistently saying the cops at the actual event that you actually just cited were actually in the wrong. The thread in your imagination does not count as a Fark thread.

It's relevant because you just made it relevant. You're making shiat up, and now you've been shown point-blank that you're a bald-faced liar, and you "seem to remember" something that never happened.

Your seeming to remember does not outweigh the actual link to the actual thread that shows me saying exactly the opposite of what you just attributed to me.

It's very simple: You never saw me defending the cops in the California pepper spray incident or in any other similar situation, because it never happened.

Just apologize and move on.


It wasn't the thread I was talking about.

it's this one:

http://www.fark.com/comments/6749096/73187037#c73187037

And in this case, I was incorrect-- you didn't defend the officer doing the pepper spray. But you did defend the use of police cracking down on the protesters. You got your ass handed to you. Handily.

That's all. Doesn't really change any opinions.
 
2014-05-07 06:04:01 PM

whidbey: It wasn't the thread I was talking about.

it's this one:

http://www.fark.com/comments/6749096/73187037#c73187037

And in this case, I was incorrect-- you didn't defend the officer doing the pepper spray. But you did defend the use of police cracking down on the protesters. You got your ass handed to you. Handily.

That's all. Doesn't really change any opinions.


And you're still lying.

Nowhere in that thread did I ever defend the use of police.

I stated simply that the UC Chancellor violated no laws by calling the police, as had been asserted by someone else. I repeatedly said that it was poor judgment on her part, and never once said the police were justified in their actions. Those were all words put in my mouth by droolers like you.

Nobody "handed my ass to me" -- they just repeatedly mischaracterized what I had said, just as you, the lying liar, did here. You wanted an enemy, and regardless of the fact that we agree on 90% of most subject matter, you concentrate on those little niches you don't understand because I'm not part of your brainless collective.

It doesn't matter whether it was popular or not -- it was the truth. The UC Chancellor violated no laws by calling police after students did not comply with policy. It was a dickish move, and the cops made it more dickish, but she did not violate the law by calling the police.

Your inability to understand complex topics isn't my concern. Stop making shiat up, and stop taking unrelated vendettas from thread to thread, and stop lying about it.

It's that easy.
 
2014-05-07 06:34:00 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: You wanted an enemy, and regardless of the fact that we agree on 90% of most subject matter, you concentrate on those little niches you don't understand because I'm not part of your brainless collective.

It doesn't matter whether it was popular or not -- it was the truth. The UC Chancellor violated no laws by calling police after students did not comply with policy. It was a dickish move, and the cops made it more dickish, but she did not violate the law by calling the police.

Your inability to understand complex topics isn't my concern. Stop making shiat up, and stop taking unrelated vendettas from thread to thread, and stop lying about it.

It's that easy.


Well then all I can say is that your absolute insistence on the progressive movement as a "brainless collective" is going to earn you a lot of well-earned hostility here. You do have some amazing contradictions.

I do apologize however, for rudely bringing that thread up in an unrelated fashion. For what it's worth.
 
2014-05-07 06:56:04 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Nobody "handed my ass to me" -- they just repeatedly mischaracterized what I had said, just as you, the lying liar, did here.


It's whidbey, it is all he has got.

whidbey: Well then all I can say is that your absolute insistence on the progressive movement as a "brainless collective" is going to earn you a lot of well-earned hostility here.


He said "your".

Are you dishonest enough to pretend that means "the progressive" or are you deluded enough to think you are some sort of ringleader in the progressive movement justifying conflating the two.
 
2014-05-07 06:58:30 PM

whidbey: Well then all I can say is that your absolute insistence on the progressive movement as a "brainless collective" is going to earn you a lot of well-earned hostility here. You do have some amazing contradictions.

I do apologize however, for rudely bringing that thread up in an unrelated fashion. For what it's worth.


It would mean more if you actually learned something from it going forth.

By the way, the progressive movement isn't the brainless collective I was talking about. It was the brainless Fark collective -- the ones who can't understand that disagreeing with one nuance of a larger event doesn't make all aspects of the Tea Party attributable to whomever is disagreeing.

I think it's funny, from a sociological vantage, just how many Pol-Tab Farkers think I'm a conservative, only because idiots like you will spend so much time putting words in my mouth after seeing those tiny nuances disputed, even when we agree on the larger issues.
 
Displayed 50 of 270 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report